British Student Jailed For Slapping Sleeping Woman With Penis. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by Samual)
I did not suggest that you personally felt that way nor did I take anything you said out of context. I merely responded to the idea that a victim is not a victim if he/she is unaware a crime has been committed. If you were uncomfortable with being quoted in relation to that discussion, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

I don't know why you've interrupted my post as an accusation. I am sorry that you misunderstood my post but that is hardly my fault.
But I never suggested that the victim wasnt a victim. I pointed out that the first she knew of it was when the police interviewed her to stop the comments against her being made to suggest she couldnt take a joke. I pointed out how the fact that this video may still being circulated fills her with horror. My comments couldnt have been more supportive of the victim if they tried.

You have misunderstood and you have misquoted so yes I still expect an apology
0
Wiggledinho
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by yo radical one)
It was sexual assault, he got what he deserved :dontknow:


Interesting path to his desired career (Criminology BSc > Solicitor) I must say
yeah Criminology BSc > Unemployment would be a more likely scenario
1
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by TurboCretin)
No - the principle of necessity operates here. Necessity is a defence to trespass to the person. It applies where action is taken to preserve the life and wellbeing of someone who is unable to consent to that action.

That depends on whether it was necessary (a) to help them at all and (b) to do so by pushing their rear. Alternatively, if the slip might have caused injury to yourself, then you could argue self-defence.

Necrophilia isn't itself a crime.

What?
One would assume doctors have to examine minors sometimes.

The principle of necessity doesn't come into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law

If it did then people in my examples would be doing "necessary sexual assaults", which is absurd.

What is sexual assault?

A person commits sexual assault if they intentionally touch another person, the touching is sexual and the person does not consent.
This definition is relevant to many sections of the Sexual Offences Act including the offence of rape (Section 1). The section refers to a person's capacity to make a choice. A person might not have sufficient capacity because of his age or because of a mental disorder.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article.../1400008450549

There's nothing about necessity. It's a matter of sexual or not sexual.
0
LavenderBlueSky88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
Seems a bit over the top. If I got slapped in the face with some drunk guys willy at a party I'd think it was disgusting and probably feel a bit freaked out but I wouldn't press charges! I'd feel terrible that he'd spend 9 months in jail for it.
0
Snufkin
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
But I never suggested that the victim wasnt a victim. I pointed out that the first she knew of it was when the police interviewed her to stop the comments against her being made to suggest she couldnt take a joke. I pointed out how the fact that this video may still being circulated fills her with horror. My comments couldnt have been more supportive of the victim if they tried.

You have misunderstood and you have misquoted so yes I still expect an apology
Well, that's not the impression I took from your post. If I did indeed misconstrue your post, you still won't be getting an apology because as I said, I didn't actually accuse you of anything - I'm not going to apologise for accidently starting a separate discussion. You can send me as many indignant PMs as you like but as far as I'm concerned, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
1
TenOfThem
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by Samual)
Well, that's not the impression I took from your post.
It is a shame that you

  • misread
  • caused distress through your misunderstanding
  • refused to accept your error
  • then realised that you were worng
  • cannot simply say sorry
3
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by green.tea)
One would assume doctors have to examine minors sometimes.

The principle of necessity doesn't come into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law

If it did then people in my examples would be doing "necessary sexual assaults", which is absurd.
Er, are you saying that necessity is not a defence to trespass to the person?
0
Snufkin
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by TenOfThem)
It is a shame that you

  • misread
  • caused distress through your misunderstanding
  • refused to accept your error
  • then realised that you were worng
  • cannot simply say sorry
I didn't misread anything. If Mimsycrafts is distressed, she has done it to herself by falsely interpreting my post as an accusation. I'm not going to apologise to someone just because they order me to do so. I'm not prepared to derail this thread any more, I would normally say PM me if you want to continue this but I have no wish to discuss this further. I've said all I'm going to, by all means take the last word if it makes you feel better.
0
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by TenOfThem)
It is a shame that you

  • misread
  • caused distress through your misunderstanding
  • refused to accept your error
  • then realised that you were worng
  • cannot simply say sorry
Thank you for your support.
0
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by TurboCretin)
Er, are you saying that necessity is not a defence to trespass to the person?
But only used in cases where a crime has actually been committed. Then it boils down to whether it was beneficial that the crime was committed. Consent isn't a defense because if consent isn't disputed then there's no crime. Just as there is no crime if the touching isn't sexual. There's nothing about necessity in the legal definition of sexual assault.
0
TenOfThem
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
Thank you for your support.
No worries

We all misinterpret comments on fora from time to time - I guess you need to just accept that he is not great at accepting when he has made an error
0
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
I'm not trying to excuse what this idiot did in any way but I don't see how 9 months in prison is reasonable. This person is a moron but they're pretty obviously not a danger to the welfare of the public. Given the cost to the taxpayer of imprisoning someone and the resulting social problems it causes, not only do I think the sentence is unreasonable but it will probably do more harm than good. This person has not committed a particularly serious crime but prison could well introduce them into that area. Give him a criminal record and community service maybe - the damage to his employment chances is probably already bad enough - but a prison sentence is overkill.
1
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by LavenderBlueSky88)
Seems a bit over the top. If I got slapped in the face with some drunk guys willy at a party I'd think it was disgusting and probably feel a bit freaked out but I wouldn't press charges! I'd feel terrible that he'd spend 9 months in jail for it.
This.
1
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by green.tea)
But only used in cases where a crime has actually been committed. Then it boils down to whether it was beneficial that the crime was committed. Consent isn't a defense because if consent isn't disputed then there's no crime. Just as there is no crime if the touching isn't sexual. There's nothing about necessity in the legal definition of sexual assault.
We're talking at cross-purposes. Trespass to the person is a tort, to which necessity is a defence. You're talking about the crime, in which case the guilt or otherwise of the medical professional would hinge on whether the touching is sexual in nature. If the touching were necessary in order to perform a medical treatment or examination, then that would likely not be deemed 'sexual touching' for the purposes of the 2003 Act. The effect is the same.
0
Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
(Original post by EllieC130)
Question- was anyone else dumb enough to think this guy hit a hemaphrodite? I thought the title meant the victim was a "woman with a penis" XD
Some participles dangle more than others.
1
username1602603
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by TenOfThem)
You have a right to your opinion - I understand your view



I find the idea the "this will ruin his life" argument annoying (I know this was not your comment) - perhaps we should have more visible cases where people are made to realise that actions have consequences so that others get the message - Looking at this thread alone I see this as being necessary - everyone on here who says it was just a prank/he was just an idiot is condoning his actions
This was the precise point I was going to make. Initially I wouldn't have said it was necessary but considering the amount of guys who think this is completely acceptable I think the point does need to be made that actually it is completely unacceptable. Let's be real, this sentence has been made to set an example. I also don't see the relevance of comparing it to random separate incidence which has had shorter sentences because they aren't the norm anyway i.e. most people who go around glassing people don't get off with community service.

And to the guys who keep parroting 'if a woman did this...' - I think the whole ****ing point is that women don't engage in these kind of activities because they generally don't see it as something acceptable to do 'for a laugh' :rolleyes:.
2
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by TurboCretin)
We're talking at cross-purposes. Trespass to the person is a tort, to which necessity is a defence. You're talking about the crime, in which case the guilt or otherwise of the medical professional would hinge on whether the touching is sexual in nature. If the touching were necessary in order to perform a medical treatment or examination, then that would likely not be deemed 'sexual touching' for the purposes of the 2003 Act. The effect is the same.
Because the necessity would be a clear reason, and one other than sex. Here the reason is clearly a idiotic prank. So the same applies to both. Just because one reason is stupid doesn't make it sexual.
0
username1602603
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by LavenderBlueSky88)
Seems a bit over the top. If I got slapped in the face with some drunk guys willy at a party I'd think it was disgusting and probably feel a bit freaked out but I wouldn't press charges! I'd feel terrible that he'd spend 9 months in jail for it.
You wouldn't. I probably wouldn't either but if she wanted to that's her prerogative.
0
elohssa
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(Original post by TolerantBeing)
That is such an obvious lie.
Do you think it's a lie because of what happened, or because he went to the police with it? I also think it's a lie but only because of the police part. No woman would get arrested over that.
0
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
(Original post by Blaq_widow)

And to the guys who keep parroting 'if a woman did this...' - I think the whole ****ing point is that women don't engage in these kind of activities because they generally don't see it as something acceptable to do 'for a laugh' :rolleyes:.
Most men don't do this either.
1
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (42)
16.03%
The paper was reasonable (130)
49.62%
Not feeling great about that exam... (58)
22.14%
It was TERRIBLE (32)
12.21%

Watched Threads

View All